Start ups are not profitable from day one. They all require substantial upfront investment. But we have to give people a reason to invest, a reason to think we will support our currency. Shutting down our primary business operations in a chaotic and unplanned manner certainly demonstrates a lack of capabilities in running a business, and does not provide investors with the confidence to invest. That is our main problem right now.

You have not found some entitis to provide you continuous money to burn, and you have not found decent revenue sources for Nu to live on its own.

Shutting down our primary business operations in a chaotic and unplanned manner certainly demonstrates a lack of capabilities in running a business, and does not provide investors with the confidence to invest. That is our main problem right now.

Shutting down the primary business happened, because it couldn’t be sustained any longer (spare me with the few days the remaining BTC could’ve bought…).
The lack of capabilities in running a business became transparent, because Nu didn’t have (and still doesn’t have) transparent accounting. The first months or even quarters, which have been very expensive are hidden from the public.
This lack of capabilities caused the fall of Nu.
This still is the main problem.

IAmJordanLee:

Liquidity operations used to be decentralized. That was expensive, but most importantly, it didn’t work because the many decentralized decision makers didn’t have the expert knowledge needed to operate our liquidity engine.

Liquidity operations used to be centralized in the beginning.
They were made decentralized after exchange hacks.
The true cost of that was never evaluated.

I’ve found an interesting thread from earlier this year regarding what you seem to propose (a thread worth reading in my opinion):

TL;DR Better face some risk than spend $13k each month for an unreliable liqudity provision scheme /TL;DR
Intro
In the past days I've spent an enormous amount of time and effort dealing with liquidity operations. Now that the situation has a bit calmed down I thought about improvements. I tried to identify what went good, what not so good and what even bad.
Findings
Arbitrage doesn't work. The inter exchange arbitrage doesn't work. As long as a pool is below the target, there's just no in…

How come this liquidity operator, who seems to have decent knowledge about liquidity operations got chased away?
Was it, because he dared facing the truth, before others did?

But the truth is: the buyside support by T4-T6 has limits. We are close to them.Have T4 empty and see the peg fail completely.

Was it inconvenient to see the dream of the Liquidity Engine questioned?
You realize why I called it Ponzi Engine?
I will continue to do so, until a sustainable way of operating it was found.

IAmJordanLee:

We can cut down expenses a great deal and improve the quality of decisions made by placing liquidity operations under the command of one or a few liquidity operations experts.

Good idea, but don’t give the control to the wrong sock puppets. There’s been enough damage relying on the wrong people.

IAmJordanLee:

The more reserve we have, the less we have to rely on the liquidity engine.

Reserve can’t replace revenue.
The bigger the reserve, the bigger the tank.
This tank still needs refill, if you don’t want to see it run empty.
That refill needs to come from revenue and not only from new money being put into Nu, because that makes it a ponzi scheme and the Liquidity Engine a Ponzi Engine.

IAmJordanLee:

already very open financial reporting

There’s no reporting from the first quarters of Nu’s existence (and some months before the official release). They’ve been quite important ones. A lot of money was paid for development and liquidity back then

That’s why we shouldn’t especially right now after the sudden spike in value.

ConfusedObserver:

The volatility risk of NBT is at the moment even higher, especially if you look at the thin order books and little volume.

We can buy debts cheaply now. It doesn’t make sense to me to keep or buy BTC to do so.
Let auction participants directly buy the NBT cheap of the market. If you allow BTC, the debts won’t be cleared and BTC speculators would just come in without helping clearing the debts exposing Nu to volatility.

If the NBT/USD rate stays that low and the BTC/USD rate that high, you can buy tens of thousands of NBT (order of magnitude 50,000 to 80,000) with the 25 BTC.
You just need to buy slow enough to not move the market a lot. With a daily trading volume of up to thousands of USD at Poloniex this can’t be done in a very short time, but won’t take ages either.

We do that with the NSR auctions. We need to keep the sparse BTC to support basic infra operations and any cost to restart the business, e.g. developments on the client or gateways to name a few from my draft proposal.

Not keen to extent buyback operations with existing BTC before a good plan is in place. Agree you could argue for the other way around, but I suppose I’m taking a more conservative approach. A lot of NBT will be freed from the parking in the next few weeks, so the price might go down even further.

Diversification might be a good way for this as well:
keep a part of the BTC for development
use a part of the BTC for buying NBT (no aggressive buybacks of course)

Cybnate:

A lot of NBT will be freed from the parking in the next few weeks

Most of the parking was done by B&C. These NBT shouldn’t hit the market. But as we don’t know at which addresses the NBT are, you can’t track that…

Cybnate:

the price might go down even further.

As soon as Nu starts to create a reliable business plan, the opposite will happen.

Buying NBT at a BTC/NBT rate of 0.0004 buys you 2,500 NBT per BTC.
I doubt you will get significantly more NBT per BTC in the future. But of course I can’t know that.
Spending some BTC for that wouldn’t be the worst way to reduce the effects from BTC volatility while reducing debts at the same time.
It’s hitting two birds with one stone.

The NSR sale need to be continued to reduce debt (payment in NBT) or to increase your BTC assets (payment in BTC).

You should neither focus on doing only the one nor only the other. Do a mix of both.

I also think the more we buy back our debts, the more value we ll get out of nsrs.
So buying back nbts now gradually while at the same time finding ways to generate revenues is probably the best we can do.
Let us use a part of our btc reserve for nbt buy backs in combination of nsr sales/auction.

Three days ago it appeared there was consensus to hold an additional auction this week. However, there are no blockchain transactions moving shareholder NSR for this. I was expecting a thread about it like last week. NSR FLOT, was is the status of this week’s auction that is mandated by NuLaw?

My apologies I’ve been very busy and will probably continue to be for at least 9/10 more days. I’ll try to check as often as I can for signing but won’t be able to keep up with the latest developments or comment on them.